Quote:You do have to admit that the evidence of around 42 leading climate scientists colluding to prevent research from being even considered for peer review is pretty damning. And then, their argument was, "Show me the peer reviewed research." Well, hey, there wasn't much because you barred it from getting into any publications. Then, when one journal's editor let slip through something not in step, they colluded to black mail, and punish that publication unless they changed their review board.Some of the scientists whose e-mails have been stolen weren't exactly acting with proper scientific neutrality. I can't say I blame them for being irritable about the topic, given the tone of their critics on the other side, who hardly display a "saintly scientific" impartiality. However, you are certainly correct to an extent - there are some troubling issues in those e-mails. I am particularly interested in the deletion of e-mails. *If* it turns out there is a breach of ethics there (and that is an *if*, a few decontextualized quotes does not prove the case) then that is more than just scientists being petty and irascible.
We all know that this is what happens, but now the evidence of how rampant the practice has become is right in our faces. You can research whatever you like, however, only if your conclusions support our political agenda will your research ever get published.
The issues about scientists defending their turf is a tougher one. On the one hand, keeping contrary viewpoints out of journals when they are legitimate, well-conducted studies, is not kosher. But there are climate skeptics who have extensive publication records - the Pielkes, Lindzen*, and so on. Plus, there are definitely journals that have gone down the road suggested by Mike Mann - "taken over" by Skeptics, like Energy and Environment, that publishes denialist papers regularly.
So, the question is: were the studies mentioned in the e-mail relevant, valid studies that were kept out for political reasons? Or were they just lousy, biased papers that got slipped into journals by individual editors for their political, rather than scientific, content? If it's the first, that's a serious problem. If it's the second, I think the reaction is appropriate and understandable - boycotts of offending journals are not out of line. My understanding from the discussion at Realclimate is that the papers referenced by the e-mails are pretty awful, leading to mass resignations from editors. But more context would no doubt make things clearer.
What is not in those e-mails, no matter how hard you squint, is fraud in the data or its analysis. (Fraud, as distinct from error.) The vast majority of data from these groups is published, and what remains private (mostly for contracts with the data providers) is apparently not different in any relevant way. The headline quote about the "trick" is just a misunderstanding thanks to lack of context.
So, step one for the climate skeptic is still "come up with a good argument that accounts for the data better than AGW," and not "unmask the evil conspiracy." If the case is strong, the research community will come around eventually, even if it's tough at first. But if the case is weak, it's probably best that it doesn't gain acceptance. Right now, it still looks like the case is very weak.
-Jester
*one thing that is sure to reinforce the "bunker" mentality in AGW proponents is when their critics publish their work in that venerable scientific institution, the Wall Street Journal. It's easy to fall into the idea that you're defending "real" science from corporate propaganda when your opponents are making obviously political arguments.